Minimum alcohol pricing cuts serious crime, study reveals

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Guardian

Minimum alcohol pricing cuts serious crime, study reveals

Canadian research finds crimes against the person fell by 9% over a decade as authorities in British Columbia increased prices by 10%

Denis Campbell Health correspondent
Saturday 27 June 2015 19.05 EDT

Imposing a minimum unit price for alcohol leads to a dramatic fall in drink-related crime, including murders, sexual assaults and drink-driving, a new study shows.

Crimes perpetrated against people, including violent assaults, fell by 9.17% when the price of alcohol was increased by 10% over nine years in the Canadian province of British Columbia. Motoring offences linked to alcohol, such as killing or injuring someone with a vehicle and refusing to take a breath test, fell even more – by 18.8% – the study found.

The findings are the latest evidence that introducing a minimum unit price, a policy that David Cameron championed but later abandoned, yields major benefits. Previous studies have already shown that the policy cuts alcohol-related hospital admissions, saves lives and reduces consumption.

The research, published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, shows how the big falls in those two types of crime occurred between 2002 and 2010 after the government of British Columbia put up the “floor price” of alcohol – that is, the legal minimum it can be sold for – by 10%.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/28/minimum-alcohol-pricing-cuts-serious-crime-canada

[MADem]

1. Not counting all the booze that "falls off the truck." nt

[Travis_0004]

2. I would be strongly against going to canadian pricing on Alcohol

Here is a chart on what a 24 pack of Molsen cost.



Its already too expensive up there. Plus, who wants to drink Molsen.

[Recursion]

3. And one can of Copenhagen tobacco is $25

Stuff like that is how you afford single payer

[Travis_0004]

4. I dont think you should pick and choose vises to fund single payer

If you want single, pass a new tax on income. Don't pick on people that buy a 6 pack of beer every once in a while.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

5. Agree. "Sin Tax" is regressive tax.

Just like state lotteries.

We can fund single-payer with a good progressive income tax.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

6. What's more likely: Higher taxes for the wealthy, or

higher taxes for the liquor companies to pass on to drinkers?

Hard drinkers likely are minorities distributed pretty evenly across both parties.

Let's not be alcohol science deniers. IMO higher taxes for alcohol, tobacco, and firearms always are great ideas given their extreme damage to public health.

Beer and wine initially could be exempted.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

11. What's more likely?

Given the influence of Koch, I'd say the regressive taxes are more likely. The PTB will not allow a truly progressive tax increase.

[Enthusiast]

23. The influence of Kochs and other billionaires is what must change.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[7962]

8. Lotteries are a choice. A tax is not. No one HAS to buy a ticket.

I'm glad we have our lottery. Its a tax on stupid people who dont understand odds.
And if you're stupid enough to smoke, you join in as well. Tax the shit out of tobacco too.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

10. Agree on all points ...

... but they're still regressive, hitting lower-income folks harder than middle- and upper-incomes.

If some guy working at a car wash lights up, that's a noticeable percentage of his income. If Prez Obama were to light up, the cost is insignificant, and even less significant if he bummed the smoke from a secret service agent.

Same with alcohol tax, lottery tickets, all regressive. Not necessarily bad ideas, as social manipulation tools, but not the way to fund a major health initiative like single-payer.

[Lionel Mandrake]

37. What seem like taxes on stupid people

may instead be taxes on the uneducated. It's hard to tell, since education is so strongly correlated with intelligence.

[TexasBushwhacker]

13. If they want to buy a 6 pack now and then

having a "regressive" tax on it won't break their bank. The purpose of the tax is twofold. Yes, it raises revenue, but it also makes an unhealthy habit more expensive. For some people the added expense will make them quit or reduce their consumption. How is that a bad thing? I had a Canadian friend who was a chain smoker; 4 or 5 packs a day. When cigarettes hit $5 a pack, which was a long time ago, he quit smoking.

[Major Nikon]

19. Increasing the misery of the many in order to decrease the misery of a few is a bad thing

Most regular drinkers aren't drunks. Many people who would otherwise drink one or two beers per day would find this cost prohibitive, and do not have an "unhealthy habit". In fact, moderate consumption of alcohol has a number of health benefits. It's a false equivalency to compare that to a pack a day habit.

[TexasBushwhacker]

24. But drinking alcohol isn't a necessity

and when your broke, you don't have extra money to spend on on non-neccessary expenses. It sucks to be poor! I know! I've been there! Frankly, I'm unemployed right now. Do I spend my limited funds on booze? NO! Because that means I have less to spend on groceries and rent.

[Major Nikon]

35. Nothing past minimum nutrition, water, and perhaps a wool blanket is a necessity

Beer goes a long way towards covering the first two. Even if that's not the case, calling something supplementary to the bare necessities of life is a poor excuse for making it cost more unnecessarily.

[notadmblnd]

28. we could do that with things like donuts, pizza and other unhealthy foods too? Tax the hell of it.

Let's say anything processed in a box. We could tax products based on salt and fat content. A tax on the nitrates in bacon and lunchmeat alone could probably wipe out the national debt.

Let's not stop at just alcohol and tobacco, they're not the only things bad for us. Whadda ya say? I say let's go for it!

[TexasBushwhacker]

32. I'm obese and I don't have a problem with that

The problem I see with that is that it would probably cause a loss of business for the donut shops, etc. But, businesses have always had to evolve with the times. I have no doubt that a lot of buggy whip makers went out of business when automobiles became affordable for the middle class.

I do think that when it comes to alcohol, the tax should be based on alcohol content, not just volume. Rich folks buying a bottle of Makers Mark should be paying more tax per ounce than someone buying an equivalent size bottle of beer.

If we ad a carbon tax on fuels, isn't that going to be regressive as well? That will mean people whose electricity comes from old coal fired power plants will have to pay more than people whose electricity comes from cleaner burning natural gas plants. It means someone driving an older, less fuel efficient car will pay more tax on their gasoline than someone who afford to buy a newer, more fuel efficient car.

But rather than slapping the tax on the end product I would rather that agricultural subsidies be switched to l fruits and vegetables and away from grains and other crops that are used to make high fructose corn syrup and feed for animals that should be eating grass. Would that make the cost of sweets, processed foods and meat go up? Yes! But it would make the cost of fruits and vegetables more affordable. And no, I'm not a vegan.

[bluedigger]

21. No need to squeeze every last cent out of drinkers to fund single payer.

[restorefreedom]

26. i would agree if

there were not increased health costs due to drinking: cancers, cirrhosis, heart disease (heavy drinkers), not to mention injuries related to alcohol induced motor vehicle accidents, drunken idiots falling of their roof at 2 am, etc etc etc.

responsible drinkers will not incur these costs, and they will not pay as much for alcohol since they are not consuming as much. heavy drinkers who contribute to increased healthcare costs should pay a heavy price. and if it prices them out of drinking, then they are safer and costs will be lower.

i am extremely progressive. but imo we can't justify soaking the rich to keep alcohol cheap.

it's no different than smoking risks, and most people are ok with that.

[Fred Sanders]

27. One small flaw in your position. Alcohol and tobacco are not "vices", they are terrible addictions and health hazards.

[Lionel Mandrake]

38. Tobacco yes, but not alcohol.

Most smokers are addicts, but most drinkers are not. Those addicted to alcohol are called alcoholics, and they need to stop drinking altogether. But alcoholics are a small minority of drinkers.

[McKim]

39. They are a Vice if the Drinkers are Alchoholics and Are Raising Children

Booze is a Vice if you are addicted. Addicts raising children is a dangerous thing for society. This is a social evil, e.g. a vice.

[7962]

7. But we're always told drug violence is because of the high street price.

That legalizing it would drop the price and therefore drop the crime.
So which s the truth? Or were there other factors in the drop in crime that werent considered? I dont see a 10% increase in booze prices as being enough to affect ANYTHING, much less crime.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

9. Good question. But would many people burgle or rob

to support their booze habits?

Those Canadian taxes are stiff, but not as steep as hard drug prices.

[Springslips]

43. My guess would be

The price would have to be high enough to limit over-drinking but low enough to discourage a black market. Raise that price to make moonshining profitable and then see the crime rate rise.

Also note that with alcohol it is the consumption that can lead to crime, with prohibited drugs it is the smuggling and money collecting that that does.

[progree]

12. Hmm, this was a big price DROP in inflation-adjusted terms

Crimes perpetrated against people, including violent assaults, fell by 9.17% when the price of alcohol was increased by 10% over nine years

A 10% increase over 9 years (2002 thru 2010) is well below the rate of inflation

2010 2.35 % 2009 1.32 % 2008 1.16 % 2007 2.38 % 2006 1.67 % 2005 2.09 % 2004 2.13 % 2003 2.08 % 2002 - 3.80%
See more at: http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/canada/historic-inflation/cpi-inflation-canada.aspx#sthash.7RByOsha.dpuf

The above adds up to 18.98%.
The more proper way is to multiply them together: (1+.0235) * (1+.0132) * (1+.0116) * ... * (1+.0380) = 1.2064
for a 20.64% increase in inflation over 9 years -- double the amount of the alcohol increase.

Oh, oh well.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

16. Using inflation-adjusted prices is a given for any

article published in a professional journal.

I haven't gone to the library to see the actual article, but I'd bet it addressed your inflation concerns.

[Major Nikon]

20. A lower rate of inflation depends on some things not increasing in price

If everything always increased in price, inflation would be much higher. Some things decrease or remain stable in price because of increases in productivity.

[progree]

22. Of course.

Anyway, for a study like this, wages, and better yet, disposable income, especially of the lower one or two quintiles, would provide a better context than overall inflation.

[Fred Sanders]

29. How could a learned article by social scientists published in a professional journal have missed that!?

My compliments for picking that up, sir!??

[progree]

31. I've seen a lot of "learned articles" in professional journals full of crap, sir.

Last edited Sun Jun 28, 2015, 11:57 AM - Edit history (1)

Happens all the time in economics. A lot of them are ideological arguments dressed up in pretty math and statistical presentations. Especially by right-wing economists, but I've seen it on the left too. And in medical journals -- by "scientists" who are paid by the pharmaceutical company or medical device maker.

See #33 which discusses some of the techniques.

I also have a section, "Beware the tricks of the economic pundits out there" at http://www.democraticunderground.com/111622439

How could a learned article by social scientists published in a professional journal have missed that!?

My compliments for picking that up, sir!??

You have a lot more blind reverence for "professional" and "learned" and "scientists" than I do.

And inflation-adjusting is probably not the best adjustment for something like this -- disposable income of mid- and lower- quintiles would be much better.

Most news media articles do include mentioning that prices or wages or whatever are inflation-adjusted (if they are), in my experience, and I read many (see my sigline) -- so its not dumb to note that this article didn't make any mention of an inflation- or wage- adjustment.

[wysi]

42. If you were correct...

... the percentage decrease in crime they reported would therefore be a conservative estimate. However, I'm quite certain the unit price of the beverage was converted into real price. There are very well-established procedures for doing this.

[progree]

44. I'm not asserting that they didn't inflation adjust. I'm just asking if they inflation-adjusted or

not. I too would bet that they inflation-adjusted, but nobody knows. Everyone is asserting because its a scholarly journal they must have, and that there are well-established procedures for inflation-adjusting. But nobody knows whether they did or not.

[font color = blue]>>If you were correct...... the percentage decrease in crime they reported would therefore be a conservative estimate.<<[/font]

I'm not arguing or claiming that they didn't inflation-adjust. Just asking the question.

They are claiming a decrease in crime rate appears to be due to an increase in the minimum alcohol price, but what actually would have occurred (IF they didn't inflation-adjust) was that an approximately 10% DROP in minimum alcohol price in real (inflation-adjusted) terms caused a decrease in crime. Not sure how you call that a conservative estimate of the drop in the crime rate. It would more likely be bogus nonsense (caused by statistical noise and co-occurring factors).

Most likely, they did the inflation-adjustment. But the effect of such a small (10% increase over 9 years) in the real MINIMUM price of alcohol is likely buried in statistical noise, and all the other things that are going on during the same time -- dropping crime rates overall, increased DUI enforcement, increased sanctions for domestic abuse and so on.

[font color = blue]>>There are very well-established procedures for doing this.<<[/font]

Anything fancier than applying some consumer price index (and which one)?

And wouldn't affordability be more important -- the real (inflation-adjusted) disposable incomes of those in the first 2 or 3 quintiles who are most likely to be sensitive to a small alcohol price increase over several years?

I'm reminded about how we're all told that real GDP (in the U.S.) has been increasing at more than a 2% annual rate since the bottom of the recession. And then we find out that 95% of the gain went to the top 1% -- and so essentially the vast majority, on average, only saw a trivial increase, and the 2+%/year increase in real GDP is meaningless to them.

So likewise, I want to know what change in affordability that Joe and Jane six-pack (in British Columbia) perceive, not the 1% who I don't think are more than infinitesimally affected by a 10% price increase in the minimum alcohol price.

[wysi]

45. From the article:

I have institutional access to the article.

Annual consumer price index (CPI)–adjusted average minimum prices per standard drink were computed for each of these beverage types based on the proportion of each year that a minimum price level was in effect. These beverage-specific series were then averaged into a single minimum price series across beverage types weighted by overall proportion of sales over the complete study period. The relationship between the rates of crimes and mean minimum alcohol price for all beverages was investigated.

A bit further on (for the statistically-minded such as myself):

Mixed models were used (Laird & Ware, 1982), which provide straightforward but flexible methods for assessing regional and temporal dynamics of longitudinal panels of data. More orthodox autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models were not appropriate for these data because of (a) the need to adjust for variation in outlet density and other covariates across 89 geographic areas and (b) the availability of only nine time periods. Mixed models permit tests of fixed effects through either maximum likelihood or restricted maximum likelihood estimation. These methods are superior to traditional repeated-measures analysis of variance because they (a) allow simultaneous inference about regional and temporal factors through the use of fixed and random effects and (b) apply to a wide variety of covariance (correlation) structures. This means that more appropriate covariance data structures can be analyzed. Regional as well as temporal autocorrelation effects were included in all models. Log transformations were applied where necessary to correct for significantly skewed distributions and make the variance stationary for dependent variables. The rates of the crimes, minimum alcohol price, and rates of outlet densities were log-transformed. As a result, the coefficients can be interpreted as the percentage change in the rates of crimes resulting from a 1% increase in minimum prices and outlet densities (Chaloupka et al., 2002).

I work in alcohol epidemiology, and all available evidence points to an inverse relationship between alcohol pricing and alcohol consumption. Minimum unit pricing is pretty much universally agreed upon by public health experts as one of the foundation blocks for reducing the overall harm related to alcohol.

[progree]

47. Thanks, but very skeptical about the magnitude

and appalled at the definitive assertions of the Guardian article.

Thanks for the information and taking the time to dig into.

I also appreciate your polite and informative responses (I wish everyone in this thread could have been that way).

[font color = blue]>>I work in alcohol epidemiology, and all available evidence points to an inverse relationship between alcohol pricing and alcohol consumption. Minimum unit pricing is pretty much universally agreed upon by public health experts as one of the foundation blocks for reducing the overall harm related to alcohol. <<[/font]

I don't doubt that raising alcohol prices (in real terms of course, especially if it affects the affordability of the price-sensitive lower- and middle- income) will reduce consumption, and also reduce crimes, compared to no price increase or a price decline.

I just doubt the magnitude (e.g. nearly 10% drop in crime for a 10% inflation-adjusted price increase of the minimum price) over 9 years. Too much statistical noise and co-occurring factors (such as increasingly strong DUI enforcement and sanctions over the study period, and dropping crime rates in general, excess drinking being less accepted socially and so on) to make such a definitive quantitative determination of cause and effect from the price increase.

Especially since this was a 10% increase in the MINIMUM alcohol price, not an across-the-board increase.

We've had big reductions in DUIs over the same years in Minnesota, despite no significant (inflation-adjusted) change in alcohol prices or alcohol taxes during the same years. But I would never claim that flat alcohol prices led to the big drop in DUIs.

I think what galled me most was the Guardian's definitive cause-and-effect assertion:

Imposing a minimum unit price for alcohol leads to a dramatic fall in drink-related crime, including murders, sexual assaults and drink-driving, a new study shows.

whereas the study's abstract said the stated drops in crime were associated with a 10% increase in minimum alcohol prices. In other words, correctly claiming correlation, not causation.

I've just seen too many games being played with statistics.

And the limitations of even the fanciest statistical techniques (whose results are only as good as the data). Leaving aside the problem of a careful selection of the data and the statistical techniques to get the results one wants.

Anyway, thanks again.

[wysi]

48. Also from the study:

This was part of the Discussion section of the manuscript (the authors recognized your point):

We note several limitations with this study. The units of analysis varied greatly in geographic size and population, raising questions about the comparability of population distributions. We had a limited number of periods across which to observe relationships (nine), albeit examined across 89 separate local areas in our models, and there were wide 95% CIs around our estimates of effect sizes. Further, we report only associations between variables—not evidence of causation—and other simultaneous events not included in this study may better explain the relationships found. Our measures of crime rates also captured a diverse range of charges and arrests grouped into two broad categories: traffic violations and violent incidents. It is possible that these reflect changes in levels and priorities in police enforcement practices in addition to changes in underlying crime rates. The use of non–alcohol-related traffic violations, however, does provide a degree of control for this possibility.

I think a big part of the problem is in the reporting by the Guardian, and is endemic to media coverage of science generally. Over the past 20 years I have interacted with and been interviewed by dozens of reporters, and it is a very difficult thing indeed to get a reporter to accurately describe a piece of research. Most of them do not understand the concept of uncertainty in science, and come from a background in which the truth of a story is less important than the telling (to some degree anyway). I've found media interaction one of the most frustrating aspects of my scientific career.

In this particular case, the Guardian has reported the story as if the authors were claiming causality (and a specific effect size) when they in fact did not.

I'm not even going near suggestions that statistics have been "artfully applied" (my own euphemism). I give fellow scientists the benefit of the doubt, unless something doesn't pass the smell test. This one passes my smell test.

[bucolic_frolic]

14. Sobriety Lab

In PA, alcohol is sold in state stores, beer in pubs by the 6 and distributors by the case.
They are tinkering with privatizing the state stores to drop prices. It's a Republican war
on unions and a giveaway to their business supporters, say Democrats. Currently alcohol is
EXPENSIVE in PA because there is a legacy tax of something like 18% from the Johnstown
flood of 1888 or whenever it was.

Is crime less in PA? No. Certainly the state has problems with drunk driving. They seem to prefer
enforcement over prevention, yet return repeat offenders to the roads. Whether this exists
to support the court and enforcement system is anyone's guess. I see no prevention in bars
and clubs, but plenty of sobriety points and citations in the newspapers. And far too many
DUI fatalities.

I can't see how this Canadian study makes any sense, it may be an empty correlation. Who
is going to drink less due to 10% price increase? Thrifty Canadians? The French and Scots and
Brits are giving up their alcohol due to C$2.45?

Not believable.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

17. Just one study never is persuasive. But

if you click through the link in the OP, you can read a long list of references to prior research.

[Sunlei]

15. I would not mind a huge federal and state tax on alcohol. exclude the first million in profits from

tax to protect the 'real' small businesses/micro breweries.

[Fred Sanders]

18. Alcohol and violent crime are joined together with Crazy Glue. Drugs are punters in comparison.

[progree]

25. I wonder if they adjusted for other changes, like increasingly tougher DUI laws

In the U.S., crime rates have been dropping since the 90's, I'm guessing that might be true of British Columbia too. So a drop in some particular crime rate might be the result of much more than a presumably inflation-adjusted very modest increase in minimum alcohol pricing. One of the tricks of the polemicists is saying "x occurred. And y occurred. Therefore x caused y."

Here in Minnesota, DUI laws and enforcement have greatly increased in the past 10 years. Arrests for DUIs have been steadily going down -- not because of laxer enforcement, but just the opposite -- people are drinking and driving less as the penalties go up. It has nothing to do with any change in inflation-adjusted alcohol prices or taxes, which I don't think there has been much or any that I'm aware of.

[Beauregard]

30. I doubt this.

1% a year for 10 years is like slowly raising the temperature on a pot of water with a frog in it. Hardly noticeable. I would like to know what else was going on in BC during this period to cause this result, e.g., increased use of marijuana instead of booze.

[Igel]

33. Perhaps.

On the other hand, there's no evidence they used a control.

What happened in other provinces?

Well, some other provinces reported, over this period, drops in alchohol-impaired driving significantly up. On the other hand, two provinces reported far lower drops in drunk driving arrests than in British Columbia. Overall, homicide and personal assaults were down nationwide, but up in some provinces.

Helping to drive the decrease in homicides was, specifically, B.C. Which reported a huge drop from 2009 to 2010. Without that drop--unexplained, possibly random or due to other factors--much of the researchers' results would vanish. However, while alcohol consumption overall during the period studied increased slightly (coming off a low in the late '90s), in some provinces it fell, in other it rose. In B.C. it was largely flat. So prices matter ... but consumption doesn't?

Then there's this bit of news from the researchers' in the OP: "Densities of private liquor stores were not significantly associated with alcohol-involved traffic violations or crimes against persons, though they were with non–alcohol-related traffic violations." This seems like an odd thing to put in this research: Causality is clear enough, higher densities of liquor stores correlate to higher population densities and that usually means more urban, congested areas. But it gets worked into their findings as a kind of control, as though we expect people to pick up their liquor, guzzle it in the car before starting up, waiting 10-15 minutes for the ethanol to be absorbed, then take off driving: "Reductions in crime events associated with minimum-alcohol-price changes were more substantial and specific to alcohol-related events than the countervailing increases in densities of private liquor stores." It's specious, but since the conclusion is wanted more than warranted and probably believed before the hypothesis is initially presented, it's not a big deal. (Such is much social science research.)

This fits in with a bunch of price-based claims and research that's been going on as public health and anti-addiction folk argue over ways to reduce alcohol consumption in Canada using government regulatory apparatuses. It's mainstream, and a number of papers and reports have as their goal providing evidence that this works. (Not asking, "Does this work? Let's try to disconfirm our hypothesis.&quot This is a moral cause; moral causes always lead to a lot of piss-poor research getting published.

The suspicion I have is that they ran numbers until they got results. Then they said they designed the methodology specifically to test for that, so they ran 10-15 tests on their data and got a couple to stick, then said they only ran a couple of tests. Thus running afoul of having their data meet the assumptions necessary for the stats. Of course, if they got no positive results they'd have said nothing. (Note that if they'd picked a different end year they'd also have gotten very meager results. When a trend relies crucially on one year's change, be suspicious.)

Otherwise, dont' fall for "what you see is all there is."

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/article/11523-eng.htm
http://www.jsad.com/doi/abs/10.15288/jsad.2015.76.628

Some paper by Gerald Thomas (I didn't get the link) on alcohol consumption over time.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

36. "no evidence they used a control": Did you read the paper?

I ran into a pay-wall when I tried to view the "full-text".

The abstract said the study used longitudinal-cross-sectional panel data; ideally that would mean including pre-BC-price-increase data and data for other provinces without the alcohol tax increases.

"alcohol consumption overall during the period studied ... In B.C. it was largely flat. One theory why that might happen is that teenagers' demand for alcohol is price-elastic. That's what has been found for tobacco.

If teens were dissuaded from early first use of alcohol by higher prices, overall consumption would stay flat, but many teens might avoid the risks of drinking too heavily before they "learn how to handle their liquor."

[madville]

34. That's why home brewing beer and wine is popular

Up there. They can make two cases of beer for $20 home brewing whereas at the store it would be $60+. Craigtube on YouTube talks about it all the time. He has a big Canadian home brew channel on there.

I make beer and cider here in the U.S., it's more for fun than any realized costs savings though.

[Helen Borg]

40. So, if the increased the price by 100%...

Crimes might fall by 95%? ...

[ProgressiveEconomist]

41. All statistical estimates are local, never global

They purport to be most accurate in the center of the data, and are subject to more and more uncertainty as you try to forecast what would happen far from the data used to generate the estimates.

[Initech]

46. Homer Simpson is right. Alcohol is the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.